Sunday, September 30, 2012

Islamic Political Ideology

The U.S. Constitution, ratified on March 4, 1789, forbade treason against the young republic. Article III, section 3 reads:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

The founding fathers apparently were more concerned with treason than individual rights---since the first ten amendments, establishing individual rights, were neither drafted nor ratified until 1791.

American patriots, whether of Christian or Jewish religious conviction, suffered brutal oppression at the hands of the British and their allies. Their homes were invaded, their property stolen, and their very lives forfeit. Therefore, they naturally cemented life and liberty "for all" into the Constitution's very foundation. Moreover, to maintain that standard the founders realized that all citizens must support equal rights to life and equal liberty for all, without exception.

To put it another way, America's fathers and the Constitution's ratifying states---in both historical sequence and principal---held above everything else, loyalty to the supposition of life and liberty for all. Before all else, the nation's founding idea was that citizens' Constitutionally guaranteed rights were and are not exclusive to some, but deniable to others.

The very first clause of the opening item on the Bill of Rights (the initial ten Constitutional amendments) sets into U.S. law the principal of a federal government free from legislation "respecting an establishment of religion." Americans generally understand that phrase to establish each individual's right to freedom of faith, yet the precise wording mentions no individual rights at all. Rather, it pointedly prohibits U.S. federal laws or regulations that require or in any way institutionalize religious practices.

Now, President Barack Obama advocates a so-called civil rights agenda---to "expand hate crime" statues like the Matthew Shepard Act, named for a student tortured and murdered in 1998 for his sexual orientation.

Yet this insidious legislative turn would raise motive above the importance of criminal acts themselves, and attempt to legislatively control thinking---something time and again proven impossible, always with murderous consequences.

Even "New York Times bestselling" uber-thought cop Glenn Greenwald recognizes the danger. In defense of free speech, Greenwald decries Obama's new policy, albeit from inside a little glass house, while casting obnoxious epithets at journalists with whom he disagrees (totally without basis in fact). One needs only imagine hate-crime "proceedings directed at opinions and groups that one likes," Greenwald correctly observes. "If Muslim groups can trigger government investigations due to commentary they find offensive, so, too, can..." Now, replace Greenwald's stone-throwing and name-calling with whatever you like.

Here's the rub: In the 21st century, some claiming themselves pious consider their right not to be offended---however they perceive that---more valuable and sacrosanct than all rights of all other Americans. Thwarting every criticism of that faction would simultaneously gut Constitutional rights to life and liberty for all, without exception.

Muslims constitute the "political faction" advocating loudest for "hate crime" statutes. Their intent is to "restrict and punish speech" they dislike, i.e. criticism of Islam and Mohammed, to benefit their global war on free speech. To consolidate gains against free speech in Europe and the United Nations, the Islamic faction is heavily campaigning against North American free speech too.

Most large North American Muslim organizations hope to globally impose shari'a law, which prohibits "defamation" of Islam and Mohammed. Muslims who leave the faith or "blaspheme" against Islam or Mohammed earn the classical punishment, death---a statute on the books in several Muslim states, and elsewhere, widely enforced by mob rule. Non-Muslims daring to criticize Islam or Mohammed often receive the same punishment, whether in Islamic states or not.

Pakistan's hudud code for example enforces shari'a on all citizens and residents---Muslims and non-Muslims. Iran, Saudi Arabia and Sudan also execute hudud laws---and not on modern whims. Under 7th century Islamic law, these statutes apply to all mankind.

The widespread Muslim hope to prosecute shari'a laws globally stems partly from the basic Islamicbelief that "all people are Muslims at birth," enshrined for example in Morocco's legal code andMalaysia's constitution, despite the latter's ostensibly secular nature and 40% non-Muslim population. Indeed, everyday Muslims often advocate for global shari'a laws. A Malaysian bloggeraddresses such a message to "all Non Muslims reading this.""You must know about the Hudud Laws of Islam as you are also a creation of Allah, no matter that you are today a Kaffir @ an Unbeliever in Allah because you have been born as such"It is up to you, as a free human being to choose to learn and study about these True Laws of Allah, as a source of knowledge and information about what they truly are and not be misled anymore about thembased on what you have read or been fed by those who have an agenda to keep you in the darkabout theTruth of Islam as revealed to us by our Lord and Creator." (emphasis in original)Fortunately, the West has individually sponsored websites too---like Right Side News.

Also fortunately, America has stalwart patriots such as Pamela Geller, editor and publisher ofAtlasShrugs.com. Geller considers America's current situation extremely dire. The U.S., she thinks, stands on the edge of a precipice. Like revolutionary-era journalist Thomas Paine, however, Atlas speaks common sense to, and for, common Americans. She too considers America "ultimately unconquerable." And most importantly, unlike Paine, Atlas will never retreat to Europe or anywhere else.

Herewith we begin an interview with Atlas Shrugs founder Pamela Geller, on the evils of Islamicideology. Right Side News opens this exclusive interview four-part series by investigative journalist Alyssa A. Lappen with a discussion on the worldwide Islamic assault on free speech, now intensifying in North America. Please check Right Side News in coming weeks for the second through fourth parts, covering other important aspects of the Islamic ideological threat.

AAL: What induced you to start a blog, and when?

Atlas: The blog was born on February 11, 2005. We just had our fourth birthday. I started it because I'm an individualist. I grew up in a post-historical world, as it were. I assumed my freedom. It was a given. After World War II, the good guys won. It was over.

I noted world events. But apart from being Jewish and supporting Israel because it is a beacon of democracy in modern civilization, I was not involved in politics. I was very ambitions and had a good career. I was the associate publisher at theNew York Observer.

Then 9/11 clubbed me. On that day, I lost everything at the very foundation of what I believed. At that moment, I realized that nothing is forever, not even America. I felt very guilty that I did not know anything about who had invaded this country. So what could I do? One reacts to the political scene. But I was politically inactive, and I had a lot to learn.

Then I went to hear [Islamic scholar] Bat Ye'or speak at Columbia University. After her lecture, Iasked for advice. She told me to learn everything. I started reading, and read all her books. I read everything I could about Islam. The media was not giving us information. And I read the internet---websites, news and blogs on subjects the media wasn't reporting. I began to see that many people were saying what I was thinking.

In a way, I was raised to do this. My mother and father had a very good marriage. They worked hard. My father was a tough guy. He made $60 a day. He was a workaholic. My mother really respected him. Once, we were driving, and he said, "Nothing is for ever." My mother objected, "America is." My father said, "No, not even America." On 9/11, I realized my father was right.

Initially, I did not do the blog. I went to protests. If there was an anti-Ahmadinejad protest, I was there. If there was a Hamas rally and counter-protest against them, I was there. I covered protests; I took videos and recorded them. Now the same rallies are against Jews, in America. Finally, a really smart commentator---I have a lot of respect for him---said, "Start a blog." He said, "Do it," and I did.

I am exactly the same now. I blog exactly the same as when I had 10 readers, and when I had 20,000 readers. My focus is just bigger and broader. It is hard when I go to my computer. There are always another 300 emails. It's not terribly lucrative. But the responses are worth it. Today, I got an email from a woman. Listen to this. She writes, "I found your site by accident. I never realized what a mess we are in. Thank you. My eyes are open. I am passing this on."

AAL: What took so long?

Atlas: I had never thought of blogging. And anyway, I had to learn before I could say anything. I spent about four years. You need to know what you're talking about. It's not like World War II. How many people are clued in to the doctrine in the Qur'an? They can expound on it all day long, but have never read it, and still call anyone a racist who cites what's in there. This is not about al Qaeda, or Hamas, or Islamic Jihad, or any of those organizations. They are just changing their underwear. It's all about jihad.

AAL: Why did you name the blog Atlas Shrugs?

Atlas: I loved the metaphor [Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged]. That was exactly what people were doing. Atlas Shrugging.

There are so many misconceptions about Ayn Rand. She is individualist. Her party is the party of individual rights, the smallest minority in the world. In this story, the world's producers and entrepreneurs, people who make things happen, are so put upon by regulation and government. It is like what's happening now. And the characters give nice names to things, like now, calling it a "Stimulus package" when it's really a socialist package

In the novel, all the producers go on strike. The book is a stunning indictment of statism. It speaks for capitalism. It says, "I will not ask another man to live for my sake."

Ayn Rand was an uncompromising person. In any compromise between good and evil, she understood that evil profits. The bad never comes over to our side. Evil has to be crushed. People do not like to hear that. But it does. Science advances and technology advances. Human nature stays the same.

AAL: Why do you think mainstream newspapers and broadcast media do not cover the influence of the Qur'an, Islamic jurisprudence and theological edicts on Islam's basically totalitarian goals?

Atlas: It is auto censorship and fear. Also, everyone is worried all about insulting Islam. Reporting even the smallest factoid earns an onslaught of charges of bigotry and racism. The net result is that you cannot even call an honor killing an honor killing and not get that kind of charge.

You can have a whole article on how a father, brothers and husband in a Muslim family are going to kill their sister or mother or niece. Yet the reporter will not even call the deed an honor killing. That line [of reporting leads] to the door. [Reporters get fired for it.] That is the problem. We saw that tendency with the [Kurt Westergaard Mohammed] cartoons. And that was [in September 2005] before Muslims were really on the march here. But even back then, in late 2005, I went to a panel discussion about the cartoons at New York University. They were going to show the cartoons so we could talk about them. But then the hosts decided at the last minute not to show the cartoons. I got there and the easels were black. That was March 2006. That is the level that we're at now. At the one college where a school newspaper printed the cartoons, the university fired or suspended the student publisher. A couple of publishers were courageous enough to admit, "Look, we do not want to be targeted." But that is now standard operating procedure.

AAL: A more current example is the failure to report Obama's executive order giving $20 million and refugee status to "resettle" people from Gaza, in other words, Hamas.

But U.S. newspapers don't report it. This is auto-censorship. It is enormous. It shows where the sympathy lies. I see it as Islamic apologism. To their [Muslims'] credit, on even the smallest insult, their push-back is huge. They are winning. Mohammed said, "War is deceit," and they are doing an awfully good job so that very few in America even recognize the risk.

If you report what they say, if you report their hate speech, you are considered a hate speaker. Truth has become hate speech. That is what we are talking about. So people are really clueless. They need blogs. Someone like me will be labeled a racist. This is what they do. They smear the good name of people and immediately associate you with the worst of humanity. If you say "ka ka"---or speak badly of Obama--- your career is destroyed.

U.S. newspapers tell people not to believe their eyes. I tell people to believe their eyes and I am excoriated for it. The most highly visible example of that is Geert Wilders, [whom Holland is prosecuting for hate speech, for producing Fitna, and Great Britain denied entry last week tospeak in the House of Lords]. Here is a man who cites Qur'anic verse, and they want him in jail.

But meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of people can march and call for the death of Jews and it's not hate, from London, to Paris, to Amsterdam, to Fort Lauderdale, and New York. Those death marches should have been on the front page of every newspaper and the lead story of every cable news and net. And it is almost unthinking that the police would escort the jihadists to the Israeli embassy and at the same time be harassed and have shoes thrown at them. This is the apex of civilization. And where are the Muslims counter protesting not in our name? Where are they? I want them. Where are all those moderate Muslims?

AAL: This kind of thing goes on in government, too, doesn't it?

Atlas: On February 2, I was on a conference call with [former U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy (2001 - 2005)] Douglas Feith. I asked, when the Bush administration was planning the invasion into Iraq, if they took into account the jihadist ideology. His response was very revealing. In the beginning, he said [former Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld and [Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Richard B.] Myers emphasized the importance of the ideology. They wanted a strategic method to counter it. The rest of the government was doing nothing. Rumsfeld and Myers created the Office of Strategic Influence at the Pentagon. But the Pentagon public affairs people were very unhappy with the creation of that office. And it was infiltrated almost from the beginning. Someone leaked its existence. The New York Times inaccurately reported that the Office of Strategic Influence intended to lie to foreign journalists. It never occurred to them that their sources, not the government, were lying to hurt the U.S. Feith said that U.S. government strategy has not recovered from that to this day.

AAL: So honestly, don't you think we are going to lose?

Atlas: No. I have faith in the individual, and in the indomitable American spirit. The picture you get from the media is very misleading. I don't think that the silent majority has a clue to whom and what we elected and the pickle that we were in even before B. Hussein took [the president's] office.

But America is already waking up. Look at [Diane McDaniels] the mother whose son [Seaman James Roderick McDaniels] died [with 16 other servicemen] in the attack on the U.S.S. Cole. She voted for Hussein. Now she says she made a mistake. Her son was killed on the Cole, but Obama plans to release the [alleged] Cole perpetrator [Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri]. She was invited to go the White House with other Cole and September 11 families, and she refused to go.

And look at what this man did in his first two weeks of his office. The first foreign leader he calls is [Holocaust denier Mahmoud] Abbas, he is selling airplane parts to Syria, which is a state sponsor of terror [since December 1979]. He does not play hail to the chief. He ordered the U.S. Marine Band to play Sting's "Desert Rose," by an Arabic signer Cheb Mami, [rather than John Phillip Souza's "Hail to the Chief"]. And he gives his first television address to apologize to the Muslim world. Apologize for what? For liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein? For paving the way to an Islamic state in the heart of Europe? And he alludes to the U.S. as being a colonial power. America was never a colonial power.

Well freedom of speech is for me. That is how I define what I do.

All is not lost. Look at Churchill. They were bombing London when he was Prime Minister. Londoners were running for the shelter in the underground. It will get much darker here. But we live in a free country. We have a moral imperative. And I know that what we see on the TV does not speak for the American culture, or America's ethics. Freedom of speech will win in the end.----------------------------

Long before the U.S. declared itself a nation, however, America gave women at large great respect. The Uxbridge, Mass. town fathers in 1756 granted the young widow Lydia Taftthe right to vote in local matters, for example. America again showed its respect for women in 1789 when the states ratified the U.S. Constitution, inferring rights to women amongst "We the people of the United States," when early 19th century suffragette Abby Kelley Foster first sought votes for women, and in 1869 when Susan B. Anthony's formed the National Woman Suffrage Association.

Voting rights would never have accrued to American women, moreover, without their basic anduniversal right to free speech and their right "peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances," as guaranteed in the First Amendment, drafted and ratified in 1791.

Nowhere in the world, by contrast, does Islam grant such rights to women, either political or religious. Far from it. Current Islamic teaching more or less parallels that of the 7th century original. In October 2006, for example, former Australian Mufti Sheikh Taj Aldin al-Hilalidescribed women as "uncovered meat" in a sermon at Sydney's Lakemba mosque. Similarly, Muslim Brotherhood spiritual chief Yusuf Qaradawi, widely recognized as Islam's "greatest" living scholar, in the Status of Women in Islam derides anywoman having "free rein to assert herself, promote her personality, enjoy her life and her femininity... mix with men freely, experience them closely where they would be together and alone, travel with them, go to cinemas or dance till midnight together."

Moreover that theme---of women as not only chattel, but actually meat---is embedded in Islamic tradition, as stated by Second Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab (634-644). Umar stated, "innamaa al-nisaa' laHm `alaa waDam illaa maa dhubba `anhu" (Women are only meat on the butcher's block, except for any parts that have dried up), according to a medieval Arabic text cited in 1937 by the great Islamic scholar, Georges Vajda. [1]

This might be unbelievable but for the fact that Islamic law, as cited in the Hadith (traditions of Mohammed) ascribes to women's testimony just half the value given to that of men. Muslims consider the accounts of Sahih al-Bukhari unassailable. And according to Sahih al-Bukhari (3:48:826), Mohammed said, "This is because of the deficiency of the women's mind." Presumably for the same reason, Islamic law historically accepts accusations of rape only when there are four witnesses (not including the victim), an intentionally impossible benchmark. Three quarters of women imprisoned under Pakistan's hududlaws, not surprisingly, are reported to berape victims.

The global Muslim war on free speech is best exemplified by verbal and legal attacks on Dutch freedom fighter and Member of Parliament Geert Wilders, who has for years required non-stop personal security protection, now faces trial at home for his truthful statements quoting the Qur'an, and was recently barred entry to the U.K. This is all the work of advocates for global shari'a rule.

As we've previously noted at Right Side News, several large North American Muslim organizations also advocate global imposition of Islamic law, which prohibits "defamation" of Islam and Mohammed. For Muslims who leave the faith or "blaspheme" against Islam or Mohammed, the punishment is death, a statute on the books in several Muslim states, and widely enforced by mob rule in others. Non-Muslims may not criticize Islam or Mohammed, either. Pakistan's hudud code enforces shari'a laws on everyone, Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Iran,Saudi Arabia and Sudan also enforce hudud laws. According to Islamic scholars, these statutes apply to all of mankind.

"Shari'a is barbaric, hateful, imperialistic, and unjust," says ex-Muslim Abul Kasem, who no doubt voices the thoughts of tens of thousands of former Muslims. But the situation in which shari'a places women, both in Islamic countries and the West, is by far one of most intolerable created by the code. In Women in Islam: an Exegesis Kasem, a contributor to Leaving Islam, Ibn Warraq's superb collection of essays by a host of former Muslims, challenges readers to imagine their mothers and sisters imprisoned under such shari'a.

"Men are in charge of women," asserts the Qur'an in Chapter 4, verse 34. Other Qur'anic edicts concerning women are also especially harsh, and they are all based on the Qur'an, as well as other traditional Islamic sources. Kasem also asks readers to find a single Western law as misogynist as the following two Haditha, which equate a woman with a rib, and therefore crookedness.

"Women were created crooked; if you try to straighten her you will break her and breaking her is divorcing her..."

One of the foremost U.S. advocates of equal rights for Muslim women, in North America and worldwide, is AtlasShrugs.com editor and publisher Pamela Geller.

Here, in the second installment of an exclusive four-part Right Side News series on the Evils of Islamic Political Ideology, investigative journalist Alyssa A. Lappen focuses the discussion on the plight of Muslim women worldwide.

AAL: Why do you consider the situation of women so important within the Muslim war upon Western freedoms?

Atlas: This war is for women, and about women, and the ownership of women. You can judge the health of any society by how they treat women. And obviously in Islam, women are chattel.

I grew up in the Golden Age. I grew up in post World War II America. I was a post-boomer, what they called the generation Joneses. I grew up watching Andy Griffiths and I Love Lucy --- mindless, carefree, free. Freedoms were like the air I breathe. It was not until those freedoms were threatened that I realized how privileged I was and am and how I must do everything in my power to save it. No one stomps on my neck because I wear high heal shoes and low necked sweaters.

And now, the key to our freedom, believe it or not, is the freedom of women in the Muslim world.

AAL: Changing the situation for them seems like a very tall order, almost an impossibility.

Atlas: Women in the Muslim world have to be part of the effort, although they know nothing else and they live under fear and oppression. They have no one fighting for freedom. They're people who've had Stockholm Syndrome for 1,400 years.

If you throw a frog in boiling water, he will jump out. But if you put a frog into warm water and turn up the heat until it gets hotter and hotter, that frog will be toast. That is what has happened to Muslim women, and it's why we have to work for them. We have to stop that, because it is already happening here.

People are auto-censoring themselves. There is double speak. People say what seems correct because they are afraid of the truth. Where you are not free to speak we are all in trouble. And the battle line in North America, first and foremost, is for Muslim women.

AAL: How can we show skeptics how difficult things have already grown in the West.

Atlas: Look, all you have to to is going onto YouTube to see videos on how to beat your wifewithout leaving marks, what tools to use, like they would beat a dog. There are Islamic clerics who teach men to beat their wives "gently."

The long and short of it is, in Islamic countries, women are slaves. And there is still slavery in these countries. They have human trafficking. It is not part of our culture; it is not part of our rules. Of course there is illegal human trafficking here, but it is not systemic. It is against the law. Slavery was abolished with the emancipation proclamation. Slavery is still very much a part of Islamic societies.

They consider it perfectly normal.

But we currently have a United Nations that has paid no attention to the millions of people murdered in the southern Sudan and Darfur genocides. These atrocities are of no consequence to them. So women's rights are certainly not even on the playing field.

AAL: How much of this happens in the West. Do we now have an epidemic in North America, too?

Atlas: So many people ask me how many women in the West are murdered in honor killings. I can't give them an answer. Part of the problem is that even when there's unquestionably been an honor killing, officials do not want to label it. This was the case when Yaser Abdel Said murdered his daughters Amina Said, 18, and Sarah Said, 17 on New Year's Day in 2008. They were gorgeous, vibrant, quintessential girls. But they were too Western and they were dating non-Muslims. They spoke to a teacher at school. They called social services. They totally invested themselves in the West. They took honors and advanced placement classes. None of that mattered. No one helped them. Finally they ran away. The West could not save them. Their mother Patricia and brother, Islam, lured them back to Texas, to be murdered on New Year's Day. Their father Yaser fled the country, probably to Egypt and the FBI issued a wanted poster. Their great aunt, Gail Gartrell, lobbied officials to designate the crimes honor killings, which they were.

Their mother, father and brother are still at large. And it took the FBI 10 months to add the words "honor killing" to the wanted poster. I called it a pig-flying moment, when the FBI finally acted, it was so rare. They called a spade a spade. But within days, the FBI caved in to pressure from the Muslim Brotherhood and revised the wanted poster, to exclude the truth.

AAL: That's horrible. But this is anecdotal. To play the devil's advocate, how do we know the problem is so huge, even in the U.S.

Atlas: For one thing, there is a fear of labeling. It took the FBI 10 months to call those murders honor killings. After 10 months, the wanted poster finally said:Yaser Abdel Said is wanted for murder. On January 1, 2008, Said took his two teen-aged daughters for a ride in his taxi cab, under the guise of taking them to get something to eat. He drove them to a secluded park in Irving, Texas, where he allegedly shot both girls to death. They died of multiple gunshot wounds.The 17- and 18-year-old girls were dating American boys, which was contrary to their father's rules of not dating non-Muslim boys. Reportedly, the girls were murdered due to an "Honor Killing." Said may have fled to New York or Egypt."

But the FBI redacted that language very quickly. I called them on it. I called the agent and the man in charge. And he said, look we do not want to get involved in labeling. So there is real fear. It's fear, or dhimmitude.

AAL: How can people grasp the severity of the problem?

Atlas: I am documenting as much as I can, but I cannot cover everything. This is one giant thing. I keep a running list of cases, and I am adding to it all the time, unfortunately. Look at these gorgeous girls. Look at Amina and Sarah. Beautiful. But there was also a “deer-in-the-headlights” quality to them. In Canada, Aqsa Parvez was 16. Her father and brother killed her because she refused to wear a hijab. She's in an unmarked grave. I said, "This is nuts." I established a fund and let me tell you. People responded, with little amounts. But they did.

I called Aqsa's family and asked what they would like. They said "we don't speak English." I went through the cemetery. We were willing to accept any changes the family wanted. But they never looked at the artwork we sent by email or snail mail. The family would not sign off on anything. They will not allow a marker. I raised money from readers for a simple plaque. The family does not want that. She was too Western. She dishonored them. The cemetery also refused to let mebuy a plot near her.

I worked with readers to find another location, an arboretum at the University of Guelph in Mississauga, where she lived. We were all set to have a memorial garden. But the University of Guelph canceled at the last minute. They told the school newspaper they didn't want to appear to support my "politically charged views." They're liars. They are afraid of Islamic reaction to a plaque for a victim of an honor killing. We wanted trees and a little plaque to read "Aqsa Parvez -- Beloved, Remembered Free." That's it. It would not have been controversial. But no. The arboretum sent an email saying, "We will not let you do it. This is a peaceful place." I will not burn, sue, deface, harass, intimidate -- I will be civilized. How could the University consider this political?

The case of Aqsa Parvez is one story. But it is a microcosm of everything. It is a travesty that this beautiful girl, who lived a tortured life, who was subjugated, beaten and finally murdered, cannot have a freaking headstone. It's insane. People refuse to change, and refuse to help. They say Islam is peaceful. But what does "peace" mean in Islam, except submission. Aqsa Parvez had no freedom of any kind, certainly not freedom of speech. That's why I am doing this. It is insane.

AAL: And there were many others as well.

Atlas: Yes. Now there was a "moderate" beheading in Buffalo, New York. Muzzammil Hassan, a Muslim Brotherhood big whig, murdered his wife Aasiya Hassan, 37, at the Bridges TV Islamic station they founded in 2004 to show Muslims in a good light. She'd filed for divorce, and had gotten a protection order against him. But that did not save her.

Muslims in the local community all knew Aasiya was suffering severe abuse. The Northeast Intelligence Network had investigated Hassan's TV station for its relationship with Hezbollah's al Manar TV. That's a terrorist group. It's illegal in the U.S. Okay, but this guy is charged with second degree murder for beheading his wife. And like Robert Spencer has reported, the media obfuscates about honor killing. It has to stop.

In India, in another case, Mohammed Suhaib Ilyasi, "a famous journalist who started the TV Show 'India's Most Wanted'" married Anju Singh. This non-Muslim converted and lost all her property, cash and jewelry to him. He was connected to the Islamic mafia and slit his wife's throat. The police caught him, but his father was important in the All India Islamic Cleric Association and Ilyasi got away.

Let's ask why it's okay to throw out our women like so much chattel. Where is the wall-to-wall television coverage like that given to Natalee Holloway, Callee Anthony, Jesse Davis? The media has already submitted to Islam and Muslim women who experience the worst from shari'a law are trampled like so much garbage, in the name of multi-culturalism. What about Muslim women.

This week a German Muslim was jailed for life for murdering his 16-year-old sister last year. She "turned away" from Islam. There have been at least 50 honor killings in Germany in the last decade. Again, those are just the ones recognized officially.

In Basra, Iraq, 133 women were killed last year. At least 47 of them were honor killings. Abdel-Qader Ali stomped, suffocated and carved up his 17-year-old daughter Rand to cleanse his honor. She fell in love with a British soldier, Paul, and dreamed of a future with him. Ali went free and then beat his wife Leila Hussein, 41. He broke her arm for reporting the murder. Leila finally roused enough courage to leave him, go into hiding and plan to go to Amman. Before leaving Basra, she was targeted and gunned down.

Why didn't the Americans protect her? Why didn't U.S. troops arrest him? Did we free Iraq to institute shari'a? And the dhimmi media loves telling us she was still a virgin. What difference does it make? If she wasn't a virgin, would her father have had a right to kill her? Of course not. This was a life.

I've written at least 81 blog entries on Islamic misogyny and honor killings. I get their photos. Every one of these women was a life. A beautiful life wasted, for what? Look at them all.

The point is that there is an ever growing number of these things that we know about. I have a list of cases that I keep adding to. And for every one we know about there are probably at least five that are never reported as such. The point is these are girls. They are young girls and young women. They just want to be free. And they are all individual people. Their lives are snuffed out. And the number is large and trending up.

AAL: Well obviously you care a lot about these women.

Atlas: Yes, I identify with these girls. The random brutality of every story is remarkably the same. Aqsa was getting on a bus to go see her friends and her mother saw her and socked her in the head.

When Amina was a sophomore she came to school with huge red bruises on her arms and back. She told a friend that her father kicked her in the face after finding notes from her boyfriend. Her lips got intertwined with her braces and the family refused to take her to a doctor.

Amina was willful. She was the one who wanted to get away. He had to kill her immediately. Sarah was quiet and subservient. She figured if she went along, she'd stay out of her father's line of fire. I read the autopsy and shared it with a friend who is a prosecutor. Sarah, the subservient one, he tortured her. He put the gun to her arm and shot. She had 9 bullets when she called 911. He tortured that girl.

AAL: Assuming you cannot scientifically prove your theory of rising honor killings, or even if you could, what can we in the West realistically do about this?

Atlas: There has to be a place for people to go. America was always that place. I believe in individual responsibility. So women, if they want to get out, have to find a way.

But there are also Muslim victims here in the West. Europe is no longer safe for women. And U.S. society has to wise up. Do you remember that journalist who went around wearing a burka to find out what it was like to be a Muslim woman? Afterwards, she said everyone was so solicitous to her. The only ones hostile to her were Muslim women. They know what it is. They don't want us to be trapped like them. They want us to free them.

Now in some ways, you have to hold Muslim women responsible. In Iran, I have a problem with that. If you do not like your country, fight or get out. Do something.

The U.S., though, is a country Muslim women can run to, where Muslim fathers should not get away with murder and their sins should not be covered when they commit honor killings. This is what has to be done. We have to expose them. But the question remains, are we setting an example for the rest of the world. Are we setting a good example of what it means to be free. President Bush did that, and he got his ass handed to him.

AAL: Do you have any hope that Obama could help?

Atlas: He will not benefit the rights of Muslim women in any way. He's giving the Muslim world a blank check to do and act as they wish. I don't know anyone who left Islam with a happy face. I don't know anyone. And I don't think Obama is naïve or ignorant about that. He was raised on Islam. He lived in an Islamic nation and went to an Islamic school. He memorized Qur'an. It's where his sympathies rest. And think about his church. I do not consider Rev. Wright a Christian. He founded a black nationalist organization, and was very close to the nation of Islam before he started that church.

It bodes ill for all of us, but especially for women.

AAL: So what's the answer?

Atlas: As I said, the key is the women in the Muslim world. They have to be part of the effort.

We'll get nothing from Western feminists here. It's an abomination that no feminist group has researched these numbers or taken bold action. Meanwhile, Muslim men commit these heinous crimes.

But we must not give them an imprimatur of legitimacy. We cannot let them get up and spout evil incitement. This did not have to be handled militarily.

At the turn in last century, one in ten Americans were part of the Klu Klux Klan. Now, the KKK is completely marginalized. They are not accepted. We have to marginalize honor killing and Muslim abuse of women to the point where it is simply not accepted.

That is what should have been done with Islamic jihad. But it was not done. This was a critical mistake. In any compromise between good and evil, evil profits. We are still suffering from this poisonous fruit.

At the birth of this nation, there were people for slavery and people against it. The founding fathers allowed slavery. That was a mistake. It was rectified by the bloodiest war in our history. Deals with the devil are much more injurious when you do not nip them in the bud.

So as bad as things are, and as bad as they will get, we should put these people in padded rooms, like heroin addicts who need to get clean. That is what the country needs.

AAL: Why it is that Islamic culture has this problem with women? Why is that.

Atlas: This problem also exists in other cultures. It does. Muslims are not the only ones to commit honor killings. The shame-honor culture is also specific to other tribal societies.

But Islam brings several things to the picture so that Muslim men are more likely to kill women. Women are but little possessions in Islam. There's a devaluation of women in the Qur'an, making them but little possessions. Also, the Qur'an gives no clear prohibition against murder. Mohammed personally killed people and ordered people to be killed.

We like to think that religions provide the ethics and morals to control impulses, to stop humans from acting like animals. Good religion stops those base instincts. Bad religion amplifies them. And unfortunately, the West is becoming increasingly Islamic in nature.

You tell me. What instincts did the father of those gorgeous girls, Amina and Sarah, have?

This is what we have to do. We have to make it safe for girls who want to escape Islam. Any Muslim girls who want to escape Islam, contact me. I will put them in touch with people who will make them safe.

Islam needs a Vatican II. Islam really needs a reformation. But until such time as Islam reforms, we have to save those we can save.

As I said before, in any society and any political system, you look at how they treat their women. It says everything. That's why, ultimately, this is why a war about women and over women, over control and dominance. The West doesn't want to recognize that. But it is plain as the nose on your face.

According to a central tenet of Islam, any lands that Muslims ever conquered or controlled belong to Islam for eternity. Muslims believe themselves "the best of peoples, evolved for mankind" (Qur'an 3: 110)---and appointed to hold all lands in trust for Allah. Both Sunni and Shi'ite followers of Mohamed's 7th century ideology also envision an end-timeIslamic Apocalypseforcibly gathering all non-Muslims within their faith---eliminating all known beliefs except Islam---and rendering the whole planet earth an Islamic trust.

On these shari'a (i.e., Islamic law) concepts rest the Muslim contention that the United Nations' 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is inadequate: The UDHR neither appoints Muslims guardians of humanity, nor restricts the rights of non-Muslims and women. Therefore, 56 Muslim nations in the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) consider theUniversalDeclaration of Human Rights obsolete and irrelevant. They want "an independent permanent bodyto promote human rights" among U.N. member states "in accordance with" the Cairo Declarationand its foundational shari'a legal code---denying all essential human rights to non-Muslims and women.

The OIC ultimately hopes to replace universal human rights with universal shari'a law, granting superiority to the Muslim ummah ("nation") while imposing dhimmitude, --- i.e., intense, institutionalized subservience, probably best described as human rights apartheid --- upon all others. Indeed, the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI), rooted in shari'a law and adopted in August 1990 at the 19th Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers, like theQur'anpresupposes that mankind is already obliged to follow all commandments of Islamic law:"[N]o one as a matter of principle has the right to suspendin whole or in part or violate or ignore [fundamental rights and universal freedoms for Muslims] in as much as they are binding divine commandments, which are contained in the Revealed Books of God and were sent through the last of His Prophets to complete the preceding divine messages thereby making their observance an act of worship and their neglect or violation an abominable sin, and accordingly every person is individually responsible ... for their safeguard. (emphasis added)

The OIC has been building pressure for years. In December 2005, Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal revealed his "Mecca Declaration" to a Jeddah "preparatory meeting of OIC ministers"---a 10-year "plan of action to confront the challenges of the 21st century" to counter a "harsh offensive on Islam from enemies abroad and some of its own children with deviant ideologies." Turkish OIC secretary general Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu praised the plan as a "roadmap for Islamic common action."

Indeed, the OIC has always adulated tyranny and oppression, conforming to the classical Islamic ideology of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna---and his contemporary Hajj Amin al-Husseini. Upon his 1929 appointment as Jerusalem mufti, al-Husseini circulated faked postcardsof Al Aqsa mosque flying a "Zionist" flag atop the Temple Mount to inflame Muslim hatred and violence against Jerusalem's Jewish majority. [1] The Muslim Brotherhood mimicked this very "defense" of Islam by establishing the OIC after a lone lunatic man set fire to Al Aqsa in 1969. The MB in this way conveniently wall-papered its hope of eliminating the "Zionist occupation" --- that is, of entirely purging Jews and Judaism from the ancient Jewish capitol, just as Mohamed had purged Jews from Mecca and Arabia.

In March 1970, "pending the liberation of Jerusalem," the First Islamic Conference of Ministers of Foreign Affairs established its Jeddah General Secretariat. (No surprise that the OIC now wants towrest sovereignty over the Temple Mount from Israel.) In 1973, the OIC planned to discriminate further by creating the Islamic Development Bank (IDB) "in accordance with theprinciples of the Shari'a."

For decades afterwards, longtime World Union of Progressive Judaism (WUPJ) representative, historian David G. Littman, warned of a concerted effort at the U.N. to supplant universal human rights with the shari'a-based discriminatory system of dhimmitude. He was correct.

In May 2007, 36th Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers (ICFM) in Islamabad resolved to impose human rights apartheid through a new Islamic Charter on Human Rights, a Convention on Women's Rights in Islam and an Islamic Covenant Against Racial Discrimination. The ICFM also seeks U.N. "observer status" for various "interested non-governmental organizations (NGOs)," undoubtedly including many Islamic "charities."

Naturally, Muslim leaders deny their discriminatory intentions. At the 6th Session of the Human Rights Council on Dec. 10, 2007, for example, Pakistan Ambassador to the U.N. Masood Khanfalsely contended on OIC behalf that its 56 Muslim member nations had "made substantial contributions to the development of the Universal Declaration and the two International Covenants," concerning matters of "religious freedom, social justice, the indivisibility of human rights and the right to self-determination."

Yet Islamic and African countries that regularly violate human rights dominate the HRC, which favors Islamic blasphemy laws making it a capital offense to quote Qur'anic passages orshari'alaw, much less to criticize Mohammed in any forum at the U.N. This shari'a-based mindset takes Islam as inviolable---and all that that implies.

Thus in 2008 the Geneva office of the 47-member U.N. Human Rights Council---where historianLittman is an NGO---began implementing shari'a principles even as it made the very wordverboten. On March 26, 2009, followed the 23-nation HRC "simple majority" passage of aPakistani resolution to protect "against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general."

As Islamic scholar Ann Elizabeth Mayer notes in Islam and Human Rights: Tradition and Politics,[N]o theory in international law ... supports the notion that fundamental human rights may be curtailed --- much less permanently curtailed --- by reference to the requirements of any particular religion. Under international law, non-Muslims cannot be legally deprived of their rights by the use of Islamic standards. There is also no warrant under international law for Muslims being deprived of their rights due to governmental application of restrictions taken from Islamic law." (Mayer, Westview Press, 2nd edition, p. 64)

Leading Muslim figures frequently claim to support universal human rights---a point often discussed at Right Side News. Yet the OIC hopes to eliminate freedom of speech. Increasing implementation of human rights and religious apartheid, however the OIC veils it, will surely follow if the OIC succeeds.

Mohamed established his ideology's central shrine at the Kabba in Mecca. There, pre-Islamic Arabians worshiped a pantheon of gods, including idols, stones and "heavenly bodies" such as the sun, moon and stars, according to Sir William Muir's 19th century Life of Mahomet. Atop this pre-Islamic prayer site, Mohamed built thinking and a 1400 year history espousing suppressionand oppression of others. It steals and suppresses other peoples' sacred books, prophets, holy sites---and above all, their very human rights---with a hope for end-game Muslim supremacy over all others.

Among those fiercely opposing such religious and human rights apartheid, has been the incomparable AtlasShrugs publisher, Pamela Geller. In this third interview in an exclusive Right Side News series, investigative journalist Alyssa A. Lappen continues her discussion with Geller---this time on Islamic oppression of non-Muslims. [Read Part One here; read Part Two here]

Atlas: 9/11 took me down this road---when our great nation was attackedby Islamic jihadis. At that time, I did not know anything about the enemy or who attacked us, or why.

The more I studied and researched, the more difficult it became to plow through layers upon layers of deception and propaganda. I almost had to make it a life's project.

AAL: So, what have you learned, in general, about the oppressive nature of this belief system?

Atlas: Now, understand me. This is not a new enemy. It's centuries old. Islam has taken all the tenets of religion and turned them into a new evil.

In Judaism, a basic tenet of Judaism, is not to convert others, and not to proselytize. In order to convert, a person not born as a Jew really has to want it. He or she must really be in love with someone, or in love with the ideas of goodness. But by and large, Judaism frowns upon outreach to or conversion of others.

Christians did not subscribe to the Jewish system. They do support and seek conversion of others. [While historically Christians forcibly converted others, this was a religious interpretation, not a dictate.] Christianity sent missionaries to the most dangerous places in the world, always in this [relatively] peaceful way. They offered, food, clothing, education, and God's love. Not violence.

Then you had Islam. This took the conversion idea, and made it into a violent act. It was "Convert or die." Should anyone have a change of heart, it becomes a death sentence. Even today, apostates [from Islam] have death sentences hanging over their heads. If non-Muslim subjects within Islamic lands accepted dhimmitude, they also accepted daily humiliation. They'd pay a jizya[onerous head tax] to live, and were demeaned by believers. I dislike scholars like [Bernard] Lewis, who present dhimmitude inside an Islamic empire in a Hollywood, glorified kind of way. We have to tell the truth about Islam. And those of us who tell the truth are labeled racists and bigots and Islamophobes.

AAL: Does oppression of others under Islam vary or is it more or less universal?

Atlas: The oppression of non-believers exists in every Islamic country. Shari'a law is oppressive. All those terrible acts committed in the name of Islam---honor killings, clitorectomies, death for apostasy, death to hypocrites---all happen under shari'a law. This is not under in any way, shape or form compatible with Democratic law. There's no such thing as a little shari'a law. It's like being a little bit pregnant. Shari'a taints the law. You cannot introduce this bad blood into good law and end up with good law.

In and of itself, it seems innocent. So, the boy needs to pray. It's no big deal. Give him a special place and time for prayer. But this is what Muslims do. It is part of the [Islamization] movement. This needs to be seen in the context of an overall assault on a society. Muslims who have left their countries to escape this oppression should be speaking out the loudest but they are not.

AAL: Aren't there are some ex-Muslims and a handful of Muslims speaking out about the assault on Western Democratic values?

Atlas:Wafa Sultan is the only American in decades whom threats have forced to live in hiding.She should be hidden in White House. The media's lack of coverage of her case is criminal. Hers should be a cause célèbre. Her situation is among the most damaging to freedom of speech.

AAL: What's the prognosis for positive change?

Atlas: If the hate crime laws pass under a very Islamic-sympathizing president, then voices and websites like mine will be shut down. It will be over. The line in the sand rests on freedom of speech. That is the basis of this country.

Even ugly speech. We see and saw this in "death to the Jews" rallies. We saw it the last generation, in 1970s Nazis rallies Skokie, Illinois. That is freedom of speech. The media demonizes the Tea Parties [protesting Obama's profligate spending.] This is not an Islamic issue. But it is part of the leftist Islamic issue. You see the demonizing of free speech. This is the most dangerous development. The demonization of Geert Wilders is very dangerous.

AAL: Don't you think that U.S. citizens are starting to yell "basta," enough?

Atlas: The April headlines in the New Haven paper were the exception, not the rule. Tea Parties, nationwide, are more routinely painted as a sinister Republican movement, organized by right wing extremists and clowns. In New York, the media used that description even though anestimated 13,000 people attended the Tea Party there.

These people never went to a rally before. They feel the heat. They feel the hot breath of government on their necks. They feel a fascist reality taking hold. They see enslavement in their workplaces, and the encroaching government controls. People came who voted for Obama. They said they made a mistake. There were business owners. People spoke about the oppressive taxation and the nationalization of banks, auto companies, and the impending bailouts of media.

Once we have a bailout of media, it is over. Who will insult the leader, when he is signing the paycheck?

AAL: What are you talking about. Bailing out the media, the networks?

Atlas: Yes, there is talk of bailing out local newspapers, on the East and West coasts, bankruptmetropolitan newspapers, as well as MSNBC and NBC. Yes. There is talk of reclassifying newspapers as nonprofit organizations. There are all kinds of ways to skin a cat. One includes subsidies to go to the NBC parent company, General Electric, through Obama's much-touted "cap and trade," his purported energy renewal program. Obama does not call this nationalization. But we have an Orwellian president who never calls things by their real names. The government has banned the term "war on terror." He calls war a "contingent operation." The word "terrorism" has been replaced by "man made disaster." Obama has removed the enemy from all public discussions.

AAL: How is this related to Islamic oppression of non-Muslims.

Atlas: If you look at history, this is how Muslims have conducted Islamic jihad. And in the modern world, Orwellian language has entered the Islamic sphere, too. Obama does not want us to say the word "jihadi." These men are not conducting "jihad." They are suffering from "mental illness." So according to Obama, every jihadi is just mentally ill.

Meanwhile, the U.S. State Department has set all kinds of new immigration quotas from countries that are the worst state sponsors of terrorism. They are terrorist nations. The State Department does not call them that. But Pakistan, Afghanistan, Egypt are terrorist nations. And from these countries, the U.S. Is now importing the largest invasion of enemy combatants in the history of man. We are experiencing an invasion of a foreign enemy, of a very large proportion.

AAL: So, while freedom of speech is itself a huge issue, we are no longer discussing freedom of speech alone. We're talking about freedom, period. Just plain freedom.

Atlas: Yes. We are literally abdicating American sovereignty. The Obama administration, along with the Muslim globalists, paint everything as a global problem. And for global problems, there can only be global solutions. So we see the rise of a transnational movement, which advocates abdicating U.S. sovereignty to the U.N. And the U.N. is driven by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). And they are, as you have reported before, the creation of the Muslim Brotherhood. OIC objectives are clear. It is a sinister machination. It is made up of 56 nations, plus "Palestine." They unwaveringly vote togetheras a single bloc.No one ever goes off the Islamic reservation. Their issue is Islamic supremacy. That is the definition of Islam. They impose Islam. They pass UN resolutions against "defamation of Islam." That is code for freedom of speech. They never discuss the defamation of Judaism or Jews or Christianity. That is the OIC currency. So yes, the worldwide global conspiracy, the fact of Islamic jihad is tied into all things. It is embedded in schools and universities. The Saudis give millions and millions of dollars to affect their curricula with mendacious teachings and textbooks, whose distribution they fund through various "non-profit" organizations, by overwhelming local communities and also in co-ordination with U.S. textbook companies themselves.

They orchestrated textbook chapters devoted to Mohamed. In small towns and cities across America, like Nashville, they impose Islam---in schools, by shuttering conferences featuringGeert Wilders, or by women refusing to remove their veils for drivers' license photos. They create law by creating precedents, they build a bigger empire, step by step. And they could never do it all without help from the left. I did not become aware of this until I started blogging about anti-war rallies, and anti-Israel rallies. Muslims at these rallies are anything but peaceful. Without fail, they are supported by the most notorious left wing groups like A.N.S.W.E.R., CODEPINK, various communist and socialist organizations.

AAL: How does Obama's presidency affect matters?

Atlas: The White House radical couldn't have arrived there without aid from leftists. They tackled the Vietnam War with propaganda and have poisoned America for so long, that instead of thinking critically and believing their eyes, people believe leftist and Islamic lies. The White House apologist supports nefarious movements and actions. He says, "these are things with which we may not agree, but we have to respect."

No, I don't respect honor killings. No. I don't see Adolph Hitler in 1940s American news reels, giving his side. We can't pretend nothing is happening. Look at Obama's culturalpsyops[psychological operations]. Our "dear leader" is on TV everyday with Orwellian speeches. If Obama wants to be a movie star, let him move to Hollywood. The media fawns and swoons and talks about how cool he is. You're against him? You're not cool. You're against Janeane [Garofalo]? She demonizes rational people and logical men. If the truth is extreme, I'm an extremist.

AAL: How does this relate to Islamic supremacism?

Atlas: We're faced with subversion of the U.S. Constitution through international law. Our forefathers did not fight and die for OIC-made international law. Who are the OIC? Expect no resistance from England. France? Jihad conquered them. England and France refused to withdraw from the U.N.'s Jew-hating Durban II conference. England lets Muslims have multiple wives and get social benefits for multiple families. Radicals can emigrate. Geert Wilders heads the leading Dutch political [Party for Freedom, PVV]. Holland's Supreme Court will let the government try him for "hate speech," for quoting the Qur'an. The OIC-dominated European Union subverts Dutch laws.

For the first time in Israel's history, it doesn't have a friend in the White House. Obama has metHugo Chavez. He agreed to meet every other low-life violent pig, including Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, despite his anti-Semitic Durban II tiradeand endless promises to annihilate Israel. [Israeli] Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu must join hands in tight new alliances with China and India. China's only future is current revenue. But every free nation, including Israel, must preserve its national self interest.

The free world---Japan, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, everyone formerly under the U.S. umbrella, who didn't go nuclear, knowing that America had its back---must now scramble for new cover and allies. The U.S. no longer protects its friends. They're not friends any more. New U.S. friends are [Raul] Castro, Ahmadinjehad, Chavez---all this in only four months.

Obama will be the longest 4-year president in history.

AAL: What do you envision at the Congressional mid-term election, in 18 months?

Atlas: There's a good chance for reversal. Obama is giving tax relief to buy the 2010 election. The grass roots Tea Parties counter him. CNBS trading-floor commentator Rick Santelli started this amazing phenomenon. It caught on like wildfire.

AAL: Do the Tea Parties understand the Islamic component?

Atlas: No. It's hidden from them. American print media are firmly entrenched in dhimmitude and they follow Obama's blue print, spelled out in his April 2009 Doha compact at the OIC Alliance of Civilizations' 2nd Forum in Istanbul. The Doha compact repudiates U.S. Democratic ideas and self-defense, subsuming U.S. national interests to please the Muslim world. Tea Party organizers don't know; U.S. newspapers didn't report it. But the enemy doesn't intend to get along. In what Muslim nation would U.S. citizens want to live? If the U.S. takes on Islamic values, why would America be different? Islam hangs all Brittanies [Spears] wearing no underwear---and allNational Enquirercelebrity subjects.

AAL: Would you say critics of Islam are racist?

Atlas: The media consider anyonewho speaks against Obama a racist. They play into the OIC line. Americans would rather be calledanything---anything other than racists. That word is equivalent to being accused of all seven deadly sins at once. It's not funny. We've been clubbed with the racist thing. But the U.S. wasn't, and isn't racist. We're not a perfect country. But in the 70s, racism was already history. The Civil War and civil rights wars were fought.It was over when I was growing up in the 1970s. In the early 19th century, women had had their suffragettes. It was allfixed. Over. Of course, we are not a racist nation. Otherwise, Obama couldn't have been elected.

Only real racists love Obama for his race. He has served racism like Thanksgiving dinner---and he drives the race issue every day. He is creating new racism. This is wrong.

AAL: Is Obama hostile to Israel? Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told Jews not to build homes in Jerusalem. Israeli Press Director Daniel Seaman replied that he admires "Iroquois territory" residents who assume "they have a right to determine where Jews should live..."

Atlas: Obama says Israelis want two states. The Jewish people do not want a Jew-hatingjihadstate up their ass. If Netanyahu can stand up against a tsunami of threats, and intimidation, he'll be the new leader of the free world.

It will be very hard, as always. Any Jew who questions this should watch a Nazi SS interview at Treblinka. They talked in stunning detail on machinations of systematic extermination---how to handle bodies, about the cesspool of flesh below that surfaced outside the Nazi mess hall. On the trains, mothers from the time's most advanced society, who'd thought themselves accepted, slashed their daughters' wrists. It's the same thing, all over. We have no choice.

AAL: At this series' outset, you were optimistic. Are you still optimistic?

Atlas: Yes, I believe in God. I believe in good triumphing over evil. Islam will not win in the long run. The short term looks to be very devastating. We're not experiencing a violent jihad alone. It's a social, national, legal and economic jihad. We see whole continents moving to Islam. The Middle East was once Christian. Africa will go next. Muslims have no sense of time. To say they have not conquered anything in the last five minutes amounts to stunning stupidity. America is ripe for infiltration. We need basic principals as part of our epistemology, and moral compass.

However, I'm part of the Human Rights Coalition---Jews, Coptic Christians, Hindus. We're not one people, one nation alone. All freedom loving people must join together, whatever their stripe to fight.

AAL: Let's suppose moment the unimaginable---that we lose. What would the U.S. be like, living with dhimmitude?

Atlas: There are historical examples. In Morocco, before plumbing, each week the Muslims carted all of their excrement, literally, carted it all to the Jewish quarter and dumped it on Saturday. Then the Jews would have to wait until sundown [the end of Sabbath] to clean up the Muslims' weekly crap. [In Iran], Jews weren't allowed to go out in the rain. Jews could be killed for that. [They were najas, dirty.] Water might splash off a non-believer onto a Muslim and dirty them. It's an "otherness." Jews lived with sub human status. Each Muslim country would manifest the penalties upon dhimmis differently. Islamic history is rife with aggression. Years ago, I met a Turkish Jewish family. One said it was fine---but was always aware of being a Jew, despite Turkey having been at a supposed peak of secular Muslim democracy. Turkey is now an Islamic country; They elected [PKK Prime Minister Recep Tayyip] Erdogon. His Islamic party controls the government.

AAL: So can you please repeat, why are you optimistic?

Atlas: We can fight. If we fight there is hope. We can fight each fight, and fight each battle the same way Muslims fight each battle. They want Muslim prayer in schools. We have to say no. The Saudi academy wants to expand. We have to show up at every municipal hearing and say, "No." There was a hearing on public access TV and many greatAmericans showed up. The audience was teaming with radical Muslims. It took a lot of balls to stand up before 600 belligerent Muslims. But people did stand up. And each battle must be waged like this. Each attempt at Islamic supremacism must be beaten back. We can, and we have to, respond more aggressively. They have achieved a great many goals without violence. In Europe they use violence. But in America, in real America, we are not cowards. Muslims want to make it an intellectual argument and appeal to liberal guilt. But once people understand the enemy, we can win this intellectual war.

Atlas: Every day I get more and more readers. AtlasShrugs gets roughly 700,000 page views a month. People want to know.The more folks learn, the quicker we can take back this country and the sooner we can beat back the enemies within.The blogs would assume leadership a lot faster if the government were not involved in bailing out media. News media are failing for a reason. But we can win this intellectual war. Islam will not suppress America.

Doubtless few Americans realized that in July 2008 a ChicagoPakistan-born jihadist had posed as Jewishto case LeT's key target, Nariman Chabad House. That David Coleman Headley and his Chicago peers, arrested in a giant October FBI Muslim slaughterhouse raid, planned to bomb Denmark'sJyllands-Posten news offices too.

The consuming desire of Mumbai's Muslim attackers to specifically target Jewish people (and Chabad's Nariman House), was exposed Jan. 5, 2009 by reporter Shomendra Sharmain India's daily e-paper, DNA India. The terrorists intended to send "a message to Jews across the world by attacking the ultra orthodox synagogue." Imprisoned LeT predator Fahim Ahmed Ansaricorroborated the report --- but only 10 months after his Feb. 2008 capture for bombing a Rampur Central Police Reserve training camp --- so as not to jeopardize the terrorists' most secret and important Nariman House attack.

Unlike any mainstream U.S. journalists, AtlasShrugs founder and publisher Pamela Geller ran the story that morning. JihadWatch followed her lead early Jan. 6. Few others reported it at all.

The blackout was particularly shocking, given the clarity of the news: LeT's Pakistani handlers "were clear this operation [Nariman] should not fail under any circumstances," DNA reported. The Taj Mahal, Oberoi and Chhattrapati Shivaji Terminus targets, however, "were [merely] intended to amplify the effect." After landing their dingy, terrorist leader Ismail Khan again "intensely" briefed the assigned Nariman perpetrators --- Imran Babar (a.k.a. Abu Akasha) and Nasir (a.k.a. Abu Umer) --- personally instructing them what to do. The results were intenselybarbaric and bloody. Bodies were horrifically mutilated, and eyes gouged out.

But for Atlas Shrugs, still fewer Americans would know these salient facts.

While appalling, such revelations would hardly surprise those familiar with Islamic theocratic texts. People unfamiliar would be well-advised to consult our generation's preeminent scholar on Islamic antisemitism, Dr. Andrew Bostom. In mid-2008 the Brown University medical professor and renalspecialist published probably the most complete collection of Islamic texts, demonstrating the weighty evidence of Islamic Jew-hatred contained throughout foundational Islamic holy books, jurisprudence, and historical accounts --- as propagated by Mohammed himself. (Full disclosure: I happily assisted Dr. Bostom in some aspects of the book's preparations).

Islam's founder of Islam began his anti-Jewish campaigns with his respective 624 and 625 expulsions of the Quaynuqa and Nadir Jewish tribes from Medina. He continued in 627 with the slaughter of all Qurayza Jewish men and enslavement of their women and children. In 628, he besieged and banished the Jews of the Khaybar oasis. On his death bed, Mohammed instructed his heirs to totally ban Jews from Arabia --- a goal consummated in 643 and 644 by Caliph Umar.

Nor does Bostom alone observe essential facts concerning this foundational hatred. Renowned antisemitism Professor Robert Wistrich, too, had previously noted that the Koran contains "...notably harsh passages in which Muhammad brands the Jews as enemies of Islam and depicts them as possessing a malevolent, rebellious spirit." Wistrich cites verses that purport to justify the Jews' "abasement and poverty;" and describe them as "...'laden with God's anger'..." for disobeying Allah. Mohammed instructed Muslims to humiliate Jews, Wistrich observes, "'...because they had disbelieved the signs of God and slain the prophets unrightfully...'" (Sura 2:58/61).

The Koran also claims that both David and Jesus cursed "'...the unbelievers of the Children of Israel...'," (Sura 5:78/82). The penalty for disbelieving God's supposed signs and the miracles of Mohammed, Wistrich notes, was to be transformed into apes and swine (Sura 5:60/65). Moreover, Islamic oral tradition --- the deeds and sayings of Mohammed (hadith) --- claims that the Jews, in accordance with their purportedly perfidious nature, deliberately poisoned Muhammad, causing his painful, protracted death.

Finally, Wistrich notes that the "malevolent, conspiratorial Jews are to blame for the sectarian strife in early Islam, for heresies and deviations that undermined or endangered the unity of theumma (the Muslim nations)..."

Indeed, even modern Muslim clerics often cite these historical Islamic data in statements, judicial texts and charters --- despite frequent attempts to whitewash that history. In June, 2009 at Cairo's Al Azhar university, for example, President Barack Obama described the thousand-year-old institution as "a beacon of Islamic learning" that had "carried the light of learning" throughout the centuries.

Yet, the Islamic paragon of tolerance and nearest Muslim "equivalent to a Pope," Al Azhar grand imam Mohammed Sayyid Tantawi last year apologized for shaking hands with Israeli presidentShimon Peres --- in far better keeping with his character than the handshake. As Bostom hasoften noted, Tantawi genuinely considers Jews "enemies of Allah, and descendants ofapes and pigs;" actively supports Islamic "religious law" (his words) suicide bombings to kill Israeli civilians,women and children; and after his 1997 meeting with Israeli chief Rabbi Israel Lau, urged Muslims to meet Jewish "enemies" in order "... to counter their dubious claims and stick fingers into their eyes...." Moreover, Tantawi derived this hatred directly from the Koran, "more than one-third of which deals with the Jews...," as he readily admits.

Indeed, Tantawi's 1966 Ph.D. Thesis, Banu Isra'il fi al-Qur'an wa al-Sunna [The Children of Israel in the Koran and the Sunna], which Bostom excerpted in English for the first time, states that the Jewish people "were cursed from aforetime and were exiled from his [Allah's] mercy, and miserable wretchedness al-dhullah wal-maskana was decreed as their lot, for horrible punishment became their dominant trait." (p. 391) As hateful a 700-page screed as one is ever likely to read, the dissertation undoubtedly also earned Tantawi his Pope-like Islamic position. It further states,"[The] Koran describes the Jews with their own particular degenerate characteristics, i.e. killing the prophets of Allah [Koran 2:61/3:112], corrupting His words by putting them in the wrong places, consuming the people'swealthfrivolously, refusal to distance themselves from the evil they do, and other ugly characteristics caused by their deep-rooted lasciviousness... only a minority of the Jews keep their word.... [A]ll Jews are not the same. The good ones become Muslims [Koran 3:113], the bad ones do not."

As historian David Littman heroically began to note at the U.N. Human Rights Commission in Jan. 1989, the Hamas Charter in the same spirit is a genocidal decree. Moreover, (as Bostom has also noted), even before its preamble, the Hamas document opens by quoting the most sacred of allIslamic texts, the Koran chapter 3, v. 110-112:"You [Muslims] are the best nation that has been brought out for mankind. You command good and forbid evil and believe in Allah. If only the people of the Book [i.e., Jews and Christians] had believed, it would have been well for them. Some of them believe, but most of them are iniquitous. They will never be able to do you serious harm, they will only be an annoyance. If they fight you, they will turn their backs and flee, and will not be succored. Humiliation is their lot wherever they may be, except where they are saved from it by a bond with Allah or by a bond with men. They incurred upon themselves Allah's wrath, and wretchedness is their lot, because they denied Allah's signs and wrongfully killed the prophets, and because they disobeyed and transgressed." (Koran, 3:110-112).

Only within the context of the above information can one fully appreciate Right Side News' exclusive fourth and final interview of Atlas, by investigative reporter Alyssa A. Lappen. Sincebeginning the series in February 2009 (parts I, II and III are here, here and here), Lappen has queried Atlas on her tireless efforts to expose the Muslim wars within the U.S. and Western world --- on free speech, human rights of women, and non-Muslims generally.

In this last segment, Lappen concentrates on the Nov. 28, 2008 Islamic terror attacks in Mumbai, which consolidated in all respects every front in the global Islamic jihad, through its special focus on the Jewish people.

Finally, the full meaning of these attacks has come home to roost in the U.S. --- with the discovery that Pakistan-born, U.S.-based Islamic terrorists were involved in their planning. Indeed, on Tuesday, Nov. 24, even a mainstream newspaper --- in Barack Obama's former Chicago political environs no less --- informed readers of the troubling roles of U.S. terrorists in Mumbai.

Surprisingly, three days earlier on Nov. 21, the ultra-liberal Christian Science Monitor similarly had headlined an article on the "Islamic terror motive" of the Nov. 5 Muslim massacre of 13 people at Ft. Hood. CSM actually emphasized underlying Islamic facts --- albeit while claiming they present an essentially "partisan divide." Still, this too represented vastly improved mainstream reporting, in record time after a jihad strike: For on Nov. 5 and 6, major newsnetworks and newspapers(exceptingFox News and the New York Post) almost universally towed the politically correct line on the second such attack on U.S. soil since Sept. 11. They termed U.S. Army psychiatrist Maj. Nadal Malik Hasan a "suspect," "shooter" or "gunman" --- and studiously avoided references to Islam or terrorism.

Since February 2009, Atlas has increasingly received well-merited public recognition for her ardent contributions to protecting U.S. Constitutional rights, including the freedoms of speech, press and assembly --- which inherently assume and include freedom from terror. In May 2009, Atlas began contributing frequently to American Thinker. Since August 2009, she's also often contributed articles at Newsmax, which recently granted her a Newsmax blog.

With this interview, Right Side News and Lappen hope to demonstrate that ultimately, the fervor of Islamic attacks on the Jewish people reflect the fervor of Islamic hatred for all women and non-Muslims --- and the universal freedoms of men and women that the Muslim leaders are determined to replace with Islamic law. But the exposure Atlas provided to the level of hatred expressed at Nariman House, has all the better focused the ordinary eye on the depth of depravity dictating Islamic attacks of all kinds. Thus can mankind help summon a will exceeding that of its foes, a steel will, strong enough to utterly demolish jihad.

----------

Alyssa A. Lappen: When did you first understand that the Jewish people and Chabad's Nariman House were the focal point of the Mumbai attacks.

Atlas: Most of the details were out there, but not publicized. It wasn't public that Chabad was targeted first --- that according to the LeT central command in this operation, that was the most important. The terrorists had also targeted the Taj Mahal, Oberois and Chhattrapati Shivaji Terminus. But Chabad was central because of Islamic hatred of Jews. In late December, it came out that Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg and his wife, Rivka Holtzberg, were sexually mutilated. I was one of the few to report that.

Then on Jan. 5, Somendra Sharma at the DNA India e-paper reported that the Pakistani fanatics had wanted to send a message to the world. It was central to that operation. Everything besides Chabad was intended to amplify the effect, but they were not the central targets. A senior police official told the DNA on the condition of anonymity. Mohammed Ajmal, also known as Kasab, told them that Chabad House was their primary focus.

AAL: That is truly depraved. So these people murdered at least 166 people in at six locations, just to amplify the message that "any Jews killed were worth 50 times as much as anyone else." It boggles the mind. Why?

Atlas: You need to understand. At this point, U.S. Muslims mention Jews 17 times a day in their daily prayers. Seventeen times a day, they invoke hatred against "those that incur the wrath of God," that is, Jews. Even Jewish leaders in Israel have no idea of Dr. Bostom's seminal work. People do not understand what these [jihadists] are doing. They do not understand.

AAL: You are saying that 17 times a day, Muslims pray to kill Jews?

Atlas: Yes. I'm telling you about the prayers. I found this in researching a separate issue, from conversations with [JihadWatch director] Robert Spencer and Dr. Andrew Bostom. Robert reported that U.S. mosques have tacked on the dua qunoot --- a prayer to destroy Allah's enemies --- to regular daily prayers. That dua qunoot prayer ends with a plea for "torment ... to overtake infidels." And it's been added to every raka'ah, as it is called, the sub unit of Islamic prayers, orsalah. So Robert reports that pious U.S. Muslims pray 17 times a day to destroy Allah's enemies, which means Israel. But in this context, it also means Jews.

AAL: So, you're saying that in the context of Mumbai, the terrorists' message was, what, "We are coming to get you?"

Atlas: Yes. That's the message that Jews are supposed to glean from this. This is what they were saying, by targeting a couple who do good work, who provided a force for good in the world. They brutally murdered Rabbi Holtzberg and his wife Rivki and seven other Jews there. And a fact little discussed is that the Rabbi and his wife were sexually mutilated. It wasn't in the mainstream media. The Mumbai Mirror reported this. Their genitalia were mutilated.

When they landed in Mumbai, Ismail Kahn told the two Nariman perpetrators not to allow a single minimal glitch in finding and capturing the Chabad House. They wouldn't even plant a bomb in a taxi to go there --- in case the bomb exploded before theyreached the target.

They wanted to make sure Nariman House was destroyed and the people there were destroyed. Period.

The photos of the enormous amount of blood is one indication of how brutal those murders were. Another is the horrific torture sustained by Israeli captives at Nariman House before their murders. I'm pointing out that no one talks about it. Only one line in the Mumbai Mirror discussed the disturbing photos at the Taj Mahal or mentioned that the terrorists sexually assaulted their Jewish victims and then mutilated their genitalia. Some of the other guests were forced to strip, but the Rabbi and his wife were sexually assaulted. And that was from an official who refused to be identified.

AAL: What overarching message do you take from this.

Atlas: These people do not believe in "Give me Liberty or give me death." The terrorists themselves were in no doubt that Nariman House was the central target. It housed a Jewish center, and the fanatic Pakistani Muslims wanted to send a message to the world from there. And at all the locations, more Israelis were murdered than any other nationality.

When he was asked why, Mohammed Ajmal, the one surviving terrorist, told police they wanted to send a message to the Jews across the world by attacking an Orthodox synagogue. So look, no matter how the press might try to twist this, it's not about Israel. This is a message to all Jewish people of the world.

AAL: In answer, Chabad has sent Rabbi Avraham Berkowitz there to rebuild. We've obtained photos of Nariman House's new Torah Ark, of memorial services at Chabad House and of students wrapping Tefilin, Jewish prayer phylacteries enclosing parchments with portions of Exodus and Deuteronomy. But most important, Chabad will rebuild.

Atlas: That is the Jewish way. Until forced to leave, we Jewish people keep on keeping on. Maybe it is stupid in the context of the world we live in. We live in a culture of death. And by this I mean. Everything. Look at the sides our president takes --- in reaching out to Hamas, and Hezbollah. He supports the ethnic cleansing of Jews with this disgusting phrase, "no natural growth." So if Jewish people in Judea and Samaria give birth to a baby, Grandma has to move out.

Islam is a culture of death also. And at the U.N., here is the U.S. letting the world powers side with the evil forces.

However, not to rebuild is victory for Islam, and a victory for death.

Judaism is a culture of life.

Chabad has to rebuild with heavy weaponry in the house, though. I'd never tell them not to build. I'm not Obama. However, God expects us to have brains. I believe in God. I believe God loves me and my children. But I still have to worry about them. We have to be responsible. Rabbi Holtzberg was very worried about security. And Chabad cannot rely on the [Indian] government to protect them. They have to rebuild a secure building. They should rotate retired IDF officers there at all times.

AAL: Do you believe Israeli leaders understand the importance of these Mumbai attacks?

Atlas: I don't know. In February 2008, the Mumbai antiterrorism squad arrested Fahim Ansari, for his role in a previous bombing at Lucknow. This came at a high price for the Mumbai anti terrorist squad, but Ansari also had some connection with the Mumbai terrorist attacks. He was arrested for his role in other bomb blasts, but had surveyed the Chabad house. And Ansari did not divulge that information because it would have compromised the most important operation of the Lakshar ... He was warned by the LeT that Nariman house was their most secret operation and must not be compromised at any cost.

So if Israeli Jews are drinking [poisonous] cool aid and believe that Islam will live peacefully with them, in a two state genocide solution, then pass me the bomb water. Pass me the cool aid too. Engaging in those conversations is like trying to rationalize the irrational. It's impossible. It's an impossible goal.

For Israel, the so-called two-state solution is a suicide pact. There can be no two state solution. It's in the Hamas charter. I don't know what Islam would do without this hate. Muslims die for this hate. It's their reason for living and their reason for dying.

AAL: Why don't the general public, never mind only Jewish leadership, seem to understand the stakes?

Atlas: Here's an example. Concerning Mumbai, last June, Britain's Daily Mail got their hands on police intercepts from the LeT central command in Pakistan. Of course they invoked Allah every few sentences. But more importantly, the Daily Mail took down the posted transcripts almost immediately. The Daily Mail had it posted for a few hours, tops. I happened to have kept the whole article. It might jeopardize their outreach efforts.

AAL: (Laughs at irony).

Atlas: You're laughing. But in the U.S., outreach [to Muslims] has now become more important than investigating crimes.

There are days I feel like I am just shoveling shit against the tide. But look what will happen if [the government] shuts me down. Here, when they were on the phone, they intercepted and recorded the conversations. Wasi [the Pakistani controller] says to the killers, "The manner of your death will instill fear in the unbelievers. This is a battle between Islam and the unbelievers." Later on, Wasi tells them, "You are very close to heaven now. You will be remembered for what you have done here. Stretch it out as long as possible. "

There is no question this is Islamic jihad. This is Islam.

AAL: No of course, it's not funny at all.

Atlas: No, you had the killers on the Rabbi's phone, talking to Pakistan. Wasi in Pakistan told them, "Just shoot them now. Get rid of them now. You could come under fire at any time." The killers replied, "Sure, we'll shoot as soon as we come under fire." Wasi tells them, "No, now, you never know when you might come under attack."

What more can we say. Is there anything that could more stunningly indict Islam? When will people talk about this. That they always target synagogues? That a lone jihadi went into aSeattle Jewish center, shot up the place, and killed a pregnant Jewish woman. Then he said, "I killed my Jew."

AAL: But you're saying it's actually much more than that.

Atlas: Right.

Mumbai was not the exception. Mumbai is the rule, and I don't think America will escape that kind of attack. That it has not already happened [in the U.S.] does not mean it will not happen. I do not believe that for a second.

Maybe the mainstream media is finally starting to communicate the reality. Starting. A new Home Box Office film quotes a Mumbai attack mastermind, who controlled the Nov. 26, 2008 terrorists by cell phone. "This was just the trailer," he said. "Just wait till you see the rest of the film." The LeT projected their intention of "liberating" Muslims. They'll conduct global jihad against "infidels," beginning with Jews. "'Just shoot them now,' says the controller, adding, 'Go on! I'm listening. Do it.'"

There are dozens of Islamic training camps in the U.S., with caches of arms. The Central Islamic command worldwide is the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). And these people insist that non-Muslims "respect" Islam and subdue themselves before Islamic supremacism. And when Obama, who was born and raised a Muslim, speaks to the Islamic world, he validates everything I'm saying: There is an ummah [Muslim nation]. They are just part of an ummah, not citizens of any country. And for non-Muslims to join, they have to follow Islamic law.

AAL: So, what's the bottom line? What lesson should we take from Mumbai to help overcome this madness?

Atlas: That Mumbai happened --- and why it happened. That this war is a reality. It will not go away. And that Islamic Jew hatred is very real and part of their basic doctrine. It cannot be ignored.

The other lesson is, don't lose heart. You go knowing that you fought. You must fight. There is no other way. If you are not fighting this insanity, then you are part of the problem. And individuals can change parts of human history. [Edmund] Burke said evil prospers when good men do nothing. All that's necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing.

Subscribe To

Followers

Fair Use Notice

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We make such material available in an effort to advance awareness and understanding of issues relating to civil rights, religious tolerance, economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science & technology, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.